Who went from RAW to JPG after getting a m4/3 camera?

Go to page

Mu-43 Rookie

I am curious how many of you were used to shoot exclusively with RAW output and PP'd later on versus becoming a JPG shooter after getting into m4/3's. I just hear rave reviews on the Olympus JPG engine and have read that with some tweaking the Panny's can do just as good a job. I realize even JPG shooters might shoot RAW+JPG as a safety net but I am interested to hear how many are pleased enough with JPG to forego PP's RAW images.

I have an E-510 with 2 nice lenses and this is the year I plan to upgrade to m4/3. I am targeting either the E-PL2 or possibly the E-P3 if it is announced and catches my fancy. The 2 biggest attractions for me are a smaller form factor which will lead to me carrying it around more often (and having my wife use it more) and the JPG engine. I am an average PP'er at best and am hoping the JPG engine can equal what I do or maybe even do a better job.

Mu-43 Veteran

I shoot raw exclusively, but when I first got my GF-1 I did extensive testing. The JPG that comes straight out of the camera should suite anyone that wants to stick with JPG. That and the fact that you can tweak it to your individual needs should satisfy your expectations.

New to Mu-43

I have been shooting with the E500, 510 and 410. I currently shoot with the E620, E30, E3, and EPL1 with a bag full of mixed standard, Pro and Top pro lens. I very briefly ( 1 day shoot ) shot in RAW, saw no benefit to me, and continue to shoot in Jpeg exclusively. RAW has to be converted for us to enable it to be seen, It comes in a very large file size and chains me to the computer. The 1/2 stop or so of highlight salvage does not warrant the disadvantages. I can get that back with ACDSEE 3 pro using 1 slider. Yes, It sounds good rolling of the tongue and may impress during discussion but for me thats where any advantage ends.

Mu-43 Veteran

When I had an E-P1, sure, I would stick with JPEGS only. The output was so nice that I rarely bothered. I only messed with RAWs if I knew I was shooting b&w. After I bought a Panasonic, it's mainly been RAW though.

Super Moderator

I shoot with both Olympus and Panasonic (and Canon for a bit) and I shoot RAW. I've tried the jpegs and I'm happy enough with them, particularly out of the Olympus, but I just don't see any downside to using RAW. They're processed automatically when I import them into Aperture so PP doesn't take any more time than if I was shooting jpegs. The shots I wouldn't touch with jpeg I don't touch with RAW, but when I want to play with them in PP or convert to B&W there's just more information there to work with. Essentially no downside and enough upside that I just don't see any reason not to shoot in RAW. But the jpegs were fine (even the Panasonic jpegs from my LX5 looked very good to me with some minor tweaks to the colors) - if you somehow see RAW as a hassle, there's not THAT much advantage.

Administrator Emeritus

I'm an old film shooter. I see Raw as making a negative and Jpeg as a transparency.
Raw has a 16 bit or higher file and Jpeg is at 8 bits.
Those bits are info.
If you don't need a high quality image then Jpeg is fine.
If in the future you need a really good image, you may have a problem with a Jpeg.
Darkroom, Lightroom, it's the same for me. I like to be able to get what I want from my images.
I have DNG/Raw files from many years ago that I re-process and see a big difference in the newer software as to what I can get. The Jpegs are nice but very limiting in the long run.
A DNG/Raw file allows further expansion on the possibilities for the future.

Mu-43 Veteran

I went the other way. Up until recently, I didn't have the computer power and software to process RAW. After I got into the M4/3 system last March, I also upgraded to a new laptop with plenty of speed and storage, and I also acquired Lightroom 3. So, after shooting in .jpg and using Photoshop plus my own cobbled together workflow for the last 11 years, I migrated to shooting RAW exclusively using Lightroom as my workflow and PP software. I've been in photography for almost 40 years and my transition to LR was very painless.

Mu-43 Veteran

I shoot both. I can probably count the number of raw files I've opened & edited on two hands, in fact I the number of joeys I've put through editing software is probably not a great deal more. I find I don't have the time or inclination to really apply myself to how to use photoshop, etc properly/effectively.

As for the raw files, I put them in a sub-folder within the folder holding the corresponding jpegs and I like that they're there as a high quality back up should I lose jpegs or decide that I want to play with editing software in the future.

Other than taking up extra hard disk space, which is inexpensive anyways, there's not a lot to lose by keeping them.

Mu-43 Top Veteran

I shoot with both Olympus and Panasonic (and Canon for a bit) and I shoot RAW. I've tried the jpegs and I'm happy enough with them, particularly out of the Olympus, but I just don't see any downside to using RAW. They're processed automatically when I import them into Aperture so PP doesn't take any more time than if I was shooting jpegs. The shots I wouldn't touch with jpeg I don't touch with RAW, but when I want to play with them in PP or convert to B&W there's just more information there to work with. Essentially no downside and enough upside that I just don't see any reason not to shoot in RAW. But the jpegs were fine (even the Panasonic jpegs from my LX5 looked very good to me with some minor tweaks to the colors) - if you somehow see RAW as a hassle, there's not THAT much advantage.

My view is pretty much the same as Ray's. I would add that I prefer to print the photographs I really enjoy, and print large. For this end result I find that the additional information and options available from RAW create a greater possibility of a satisfying print.

I would also mention that with modern, RAW optimized software such as Aperture and LR (I use the latter) my RAW processing is swift and easy. I can quickly generate several virtual copies with maximum information and tweak them in no time.

Administrator Emeritus

I would suggest youse make a good file from a Jpeg and a Raw and then send it to get printed. Maybe an 11 x 14 or so. It's an eye opening, mind expanding experience.
Mpix is fast & cheap and the results are very good.

On a screen, 72 dpi everything looks the same. Prints unfold the truth.

Mu-43 Regular

I shoot RAW and will continue to do so for one reason, compatibility. I just tried to add a bunch of "old" pictures from back-up DVD's to my Aperture library, the pictures are scanned from film between 2002 and 2009. Switching to 64bit OS(Mac) some of the image files couldn't even be opened. Worked my way around it but in the future I prefer to be able to make new pictures from my RAW-file when jpeg becomes obsolete.

Mu-43 Top Veteran

I would suggest youse make a good file from a Jpeg and a Raw and then send it to get printed. Maybe an 11 x 14 or so. It's an eye opening, mind expanding experience.
Mpix is fast & cheap and the results are very good.

On a screen, 72 dpi everything looks the same. Prints unfold the truth.

Mu-43 Rookie

I shoot RAW and will continue to do so for one reason, compatibility. I just tried to add a bunch of "old" pictures from back-up DVD's to my Aperture library, the pictures are scanned from film between 2002 and 2009. Switching to 64bit OS(Mac) some of the image files couldn't even be opened. Worked my way around it but in the future I prefer to be able to make new pictures from my RAW-file when jpeg becomes obsolete.

I am not so sure RAW files won't become obsolete over time too. My iMac can't read my old Canon G2 CRW files natively. I had to use Adobe's DNG converter if memory serves me correctly to make them TIFF files.

Mu-43 Veteran

I started with RAW from day one.
I only use JPG if I want to use the Auto Bracket for merging the photographs later for an HDR result.

There is no difference in my work-flow with RAW, TIF, JPG etc...
All the sames tools are used for any file type... No special "plug-In" or software either... I use ACDSee Pro 3 for 98% of my Post work.

Mu-43 Regular

I shoot both RAW and Jpeg, but I have to admit that the Jpegs are more than good enough from my Olympus EP2, but since the 16Gb SDHC memory cards are so cheap these days, I will still continue to shoot both image format as a "safety net".